Council Will Consider Watered-Down Ethics Plan : Government: The proposal calls for an ethics education committee, but it offers little else that is not already included in state guidelines.

After more than a year of committee discussions, the City Council is preparing to take up a mildly worded ethics proposal more noteworthy for what it lacks than for what it contains.

The proposal would create an ethics education committee, but for the most part it barely goes beyond existing state laws in setting conflict-of-interest guidelines. The ethics package, approved by a council committee last week, also fails to offer any new restrictions on campaigning.

“Really, it’s trying to clarify what is already existing,” said Councilman Jeffrey A. Kellogg, chairman of the Legislation Committee that drafted the proposal.

“There’s nothing in there that’s a blockbuster,” acknowledged Councilman Les Robbins, also a committee member. “(But) I think it’s about as far as we can go at this point.”

Kellogg said he expects his colleagues to suggest various additions once the matter reaches the council floor. “I just wanted to get it out in full council and say, ‘Where do you want to go from here?’ ” Kellogg explained. “All the same arguments we’ve heard in the past I think we’ll hear again.”

There has long been talk of adopting local ethics standards that would go beyond state law. The move gained strength a couple of years ago after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley became embroiled in controversy over his financial affairs and Los Angeles adopted one of the toughest ethics laws in the nation.

But that law has run into so many legal obstacles that it is being extensively revised. Members of the Legislation Committee in Long Beach said they shied away from recommending many of the Los Angeles provisions because they are under court challenge, would cost money or did not apply to Long Beach’s part-time council.

“We are not Los Angeles. We are not a full-time council,” stressed Robbins.

Among previously suggested reforms omitted from the committee draft:

* Partial public financing of political campaigns and limits on campaign spending. Los Angeles has such a provision, but a 1988 statewide initiative bans public campaign financing. Los Angeles attorneys contend that charter cities such as Long Beach and Los Angeles are exempt from the financing prohibition. The matter is now before the California Supreme Court.

* Any restrictions barring council members from voting on matters involving their major political donors. “I don’t know if that’s right to say that people who have business in a community can’t be politically involved,” Robbins commented, arguing that such a prohibition would inhibit business interests from donating to political candidates.

* Local limits on campaign contributions. Donation limits set by statewide initiative have been struck down in court, but the decision has been appealed.

The proposal’s key provisions include:

* Creation of a Committee on Ethics Education, consisting of the mayor, city attorney and city clerk. The panel would conduct seminars explaining state and local regulations on political activity and develop an ethics handbook that would review the restrictions.

* A ban on the acceptance of honorariums by elected officials and top city decision makers. The draft, however, does not bar officials from accepting gifts and loans. Rather, it says they must be disclosed as required under state law.

* Barring city officials and employees from negotiating for future employment with anyone involved in a matter pending before the city agency to which they are assigned. Elected officials and senior city officers who leave city employment would also be prohibited from lobbying their former department or agency on matters in which they were involved for a year after they leave office.

The ethics package will probably go before the council in January. In the meantime, the council this week will consider another proposal from the Legislation Committee.

The measure would require local political candidates to pay a $200 filing fee to run for elected office, in addition to presenting a petition with 20 resident signatures. At present, no fee is required. As a result, Kellogg said, “You have many people who are not going to be serious candidates.”

A filing fee, he said, would help winnow out frivolous office seekers.

Those unable to pay the full fee could instead collect additional signatures.